As Ron Fried mentioned according to a friend of his, students learn the Game very quickly. By primary school, the children have figured out the most energy-efficient form of completing work that reflects little to no intellectual pursuit. The flip side of this is that conversations with the children reflect that they are indeed intellectually capable of consuming literature and heeding the messages.
I am currently placed at Classical High School and Nathanael Greene Middle School and I see different elements of the Game of School being played at each setting. Classical High School is ranked the second best performing public high school in the state, behind Barrington. The students here are brilliant- and they know it, having had to pass an entrance exam to attend. They are a classroom management dream: I have heard accounts of subs not showing up and the students, instead of going wild, acquire the work for the day, complete it, and go on with their day, having never reported the absentee instructor. Yet with brilliant teenagers come brilliant ways of applying the least amount of energy for the highest possible grade. I say this not to be cynical, but from a place of recognizing exactly what that looks like because I too, have been playing the Game of School for several years now. Many students (but definitely not all) at Classical are the “A” students described by Fried.
The students at Nathanael Greene are a more accurate representation of an urban school with much wider gaps in achievement and grades. A lot of the learning that occurs in Mr. Whalen’s 7th grade science class happens cooperatively with labs and activities that foster interdependence and in-class assignments that start as independent work and then are completed and discussed as a class. I’ve noticed that the students have learned that if they wait long enough, they will eventually get the answer from someone else during discussion, or if they just stick with the group during lab, they will get the data they need. This is not all students, but some. In each period, I have observed students who are several questions ahead of the class, students who are actively looking through their notes and other resources, and students who answer questions thoughtfully and thoroughly.
I have observed Ms. Shapiro of Classical High School combat the Game of School by stressing the importance of what the students are doing, by emphasizing the value of holding onto the resources and handouts, and by connecting the students’ decisions made now and the material learned in class to the rest of their lives. Mr. Whalen of Nathanael Greene combats the Game by being very intentional in the relationships he builds with his lower performing students. Mr. Whalen is not a fool- he is aware of who the wagon riders are and who is pulling. When he sees some students “working” (waiting for the answers), he approaches them on their level by crouching to the table and working through the material with the students. On several occasions, Mr. Whalen will talk about how what the students are learning connects to life outside the classroom.
Wisdom and knowledge are not the same thing and I’m willing to claim that the intellectual pursuit Fried so passionately desires is fueled more by wisdom than knowledge of material. I would like to cultivate students who do not only have a sturdy grasp on content and concepts, but also have wisdom and intellectual capabilities to discuss content with a critical and applicable perspective. On top of teaching students why the material is important, I’d like to teach the students how to see that material is important. I believe that one measurable, non-subjective facet to this is content-specific literacy skills. As a science teacher, I want students not only to know the “what” (material), but the “why” and “how” (evidence and data). I firmly believe that literacy is a tool for self-sufficiency and that though there are content-specific literacy skills, those skills should reach across disciplines. I view literacy as a form of wisdom that unlocks doors to the acquisition of knowledge and the practice of intelligence.
An example of this can be seen in student assessments. In both formal and informal assessments, I’d like to use questions that require students to apply their knowledge to situations versus simply recalling. I would like to see students analyzing data and crafting experiments as young scientists, but I would also like to include quasi-subjective prompts (How do you feel about XYZ? What would you do differently? etc). Though science should be objective, it is still the subjective passions which fuel researchers and scientists to press into the pursuit of knowledge. Ultimately, I want my students to know their voices are heard, whether they are playing the game or not.
I am currently placed at Classical High School and Nathanael Greene Middle School and I see different elements of the Game of School being played at each setting. Classical High School is ranked the second best performing public high school in the state, behind Barrington. The students here are brilliant- and they know it, having had to pass an entrance exam to attend. They are a classroom management dream: I have heard accounts of subs not showing up and the students, instead of going wild, acquire the work for the day, complete it, and go on with their day, having never reported the absentee instructor. Yet with brilliant teenagers come brilliant ways of applying the least amount of energy for the highest possible grade. I say this not to be cynical, but from a place of recognizing exactly what that looks like because I too, have been playing the Game of School for several years now. Many students (but definitely not all) at Classical are the “A” students described by Fried.
The students at Nathanael Greene are a more accurate representation of an urban school with much wider gaps in achievement and grades. A lot of the learning that occurs in Mr. Whalen’s 7th grade science class happens cooperatively with labs and activities that foster interdependence and in-class assignments that start as independent work and then are completed and discussed as a class. I’ve noticed that the students have learned that if they wait long enough, they will eventually get the answer from someone else during discussion, or if they just stick with the group during lab, they will get the data they need. This is not all students, but some. In each period, I have observed students who are several questions ahead of the class, students who are actively looking through their notes and other resources, and students who answer questions thoughtfully and thoroughly.
I have observed Ms. Shapiro of Classical High School combat the Game of School by stressing the importance of what the students are doing, by emphasizing the value of holding onto the resources and handouts, and by connecting the students’ decisions made now and the material learned in class to the rest of their lives. Mr. Whalen of Nathanael Greene combats the Game by being very intentional in the relationships he builds with his lower performing students. Mr. Whalen is not a fool- he is aware of who the wagon riders are and who is pulling. When he sees some students “working” (waiting for the answers), he approaches them on their level by crouching to the table and working through the material with the students. On several occasions, Mr. Whalen will talk about how what the students are learning connects to life outside the classroom.
Wisdom and knowledge are not the same thing and I’m willing to claim that the intellectual pursuit Fried so passionately desires is fueled more by wisdom than knowledge of material. I would like to cultivate students who do not only have a sturdy grasp on content and concepts, but also have wisdom and intellectual capabilities to discuss content with a critical and applicable perspective. On top of teaching students why the material is important, I’d like to teach the students how to see that material is important. I believe that one measurable, non-subjective facet to this is content-specific literacy skills. As a science teacher, I want students not only to know the “what” (material), but the “why” and “how” (evidence and data). I firmly believe that literacy is a tool for self-sufficiency and that though there are content-specific literacy skills, those skills should reach across disciplines. I view literacy as a form of wisdom that unlocks doors to the acquisition of knowledge and the practice of intelligence.
An example of this can be seen in student assessments. In both formal and informal assessments, I’d like to use questions that require students to apply their knowledge to situations versus simply recalling. I would like to see students analyzing data and crafting experiments as young scientists, but I would also like to include quasi-subjective prompts (How do you feel about XYZ? What would you do differently? etc). Though science should be objective, it is still the subjective passions which fuel researchers and scientists to press into the pursuit of knowledge. Ultimately, I want my students to know their voices are heard, whether they are playing the game or not.